Building on Mistrust of Officials, Voters in West Try to Limit Terms

By TIMOTHY EGAN,

Published: September 23, 1991

SEATTLE, Sept. 22—
The most severe term-limitation measure ever to go before a state's voters is under consideration in Washington State, where a proposal on the ballot this November would throw out the entire Congressional delegation three years after the vote. It would end the legislative career of Speaker Thomas S. Foley and kill the chance that the state's popular Governor, Booth Gardner, could run for a third term in 1992.

The Washington initiative is part of a populist movement that has been spreading like a prairie fire, especially in the West. Three states -- California, Colorado and Oklahoma -- adopted term limits in 1990, and backers are circulating petitions for statewide referendums in 1992 or later in every Western state but New Mexico and Hawaii.

Like the Colorado limits and like many of those under consideration elsewhere, Washington's would apply to members of Congress as well as state officeholders. But unlike the term limits in effect elsewhere, it would provide no exceptions for people in office at the time of the referendum. They would have to leave office in 1994 if they met or exceeded the limits of three two-year terms for United States representatives or state House members, two six-year terms for senators and two four-year terms for the governor.

The United States Constitution does not make clear whether states can limit terms in Congress, and if Washington's initiative passes it will almost certainly be challenged in the Federal courts. Local private polls show that more than 60 percent of voters approve of the Washington measure, but the support has been dropping.

Here and elsewhere, the term-limitation movement is financed primarly by Republican and anti-tax groups but staffed by people from across the political spectrum. Sherry Bockwinkel, a leader of the initiative here, has long worked in the campaigns of liberal and Democratic causes.

Proponents say members of Congress have brought the ax of term limits upon themselves. They point to the inability of Federal lawmakers to pass into law a strong bill curbing the power of special-interest money and lobbyists. They talk scornfully of the "permanent Congress," in which 96 percent of incumbents were re-elected in 1990 -- a year in which only 36 percent of Americans of voting age went to the polls.

"Most people feel disconnected to and unrepresented by Congress," said John Burick, a spokesman for Limit, the group that gathered enough signatures to put Initiative 553 on the ballot here in November. "What this will do is move the best and brightest people in Congress on and up and knock the deadwood off." Public Support Seen

Americans may well be fed up with Congress; a Gallup poll last year showed that 70 percent of respondents supported term limits. But some political experts say the alternative could be worse. Under term limits, critics envision a Congress of rookies and lame ducks, more prone to manipulation by veteran lobbyists, and with more power shifted to the executive branch. If a great statesman were to arise, he would have to do so in six years or move along.

"We know the political process is not working well and is not very responsive to the average citizen," said Margeret Colony of the League of Women Voters, which is fighting the term-limit proposal here. "But this type of measure is so drastic that it would only compound the problem. And, it takes away people's choice. If you want somebody out of office, vote 'em out." Never 'In High Regard'

Mr. Foley, first elected to Congress in 1964 from his district in eastern Washington, calls his home state proposal "absolutely unconstitutional" and "a legal fraud."

In an interview, Mr. Foley also disputed the argument behind the initiative, that Congress is entrenched. He said the House of Representatives had 50 percent turnover in the last 10 years and 80 percent turnover since 1974. He also said public distrust of Congress is no worse now than it has been historically.

"Congress as an institution -- faceless, anonymous -- has never been held in high regard by people," he said.

Two weeks ago, the Washington State Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit challenging Inititative 553, saying it must first be decided by the voters. But if it passes, the initiative will certainly face a test in Federal court. Many legal scholars agree with Mr. Foley that the only way to change the terms of Federal office is through an amendment to the United States Constitution.

The California Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of this month on the legality of a measure passed by voters last year that not only limited the terms of state legislators, but cut staff budgets by 40 percent and did away with members' pension plan.

In the two other states that approved term limits last year, Colorado and Oklahoma, the new laws have not been tested in court. Colorado is the only state to place limits on Federal office, but unlike the Washington measure, Colorado's is not retroactive and will be phased in over the years. Keeping Up the Effort

But even if these voter-initated term limits are knocked out by court rulings, organizers say they will keep at it, trying to send a wake-up call to their representatives.

"This is a mainstream effort to regain control of government and it has a full head of momentum," said Mr. Burick, the spokesman for Limit.

Some political experts see term-limit drives not only as a signal of frustration by voters, but as an indicator of the ill-health of American democracy.